大乘義章 14.4

14.4

初釋名辨相。觀心於法，取相名想。想別不同，一門說十。十名是何？一無常想、二苦想、三無我想、四厭食想、五一切世間不可樂想、六死想、七不淨想、八斷想、九離想、十滅想亦名盡想。無常想者，觀有為法遷流非恒，故曰無常。無常有三：一分段無常，六道果報三世分異，於中有二：一者有餘，身死名在；二者無餘，身死名滅。二念無常，有為念念四相遷變。三者自性不成實無常，有為之法因緣虛集，無有定性，生即無生、滅即無滅。如龍樹說，見身盡滅，即是第一分段無常；新新生滅，是念無常；生時無來、滅時無去，是其自性不成實無常。以此三觀，能滅煩惱。問曰：有人由見無常更增煩惱，懼盛年不久，深起染著。今云何言無常之想能滅煩惱？龍樹釋言「如是見者名少分見，不名具足。若具見者則破煩惱。云何具足？如佛昔告舍利弗言：『當具修習無常之想。無常故空，得空之時無常亦無，生住滅等不可得故。見生住滅不可得時，名為究竟自性無常。』」性既無常，何樂可貪？問曰：若言得空之時無常亦無，何故佛說無常之義為苦諦實？論言「佛為邪見之人謂世間常，故說無常為苦諦實，不為無常是實故說。」言苦想者，觀有為法無常故苦。苦有三種，所謂苦苦、壞苦、行苦，是義如前四諦章中具廣分別。問曰：若言法皆是苦者，云何得有苦樂及捨三受差別？如《涅槃》說，凡夫苦中妄生樂想，理實是苦。問曰：若法無常故苦，聖道無常，體是苦不？龍樹釋言「無常故苦。為於有漏五受陰說，不為聖道。所以然者，道能破苦，與空無我實義相應，故雖無常而非是苦。」問曰：聖人五陰無常，五陰壞時聖人苦不？龍樹釋言「有著心者，法壞則苦。聖人無著，故雖無常而不生苦。」問曰：若言聖無苦者，如經中說舍利弗患風病苦、畢陵伽婆蹉患眼病苦、羅婆那比丘患痔病苦，云何言無？論言「聖人但無心苦，非無身苦。」問曰：聖人若無心苦，何故滅智而取滅度？釋言：無者但無追變敗壞之苦，非無苦苦厭行之苦。無我想者，有為之法無常苦故不得自在，故無有我。又一切法皆無定性，故無有我。無我有二：一眾生無我、二法無我，此義如前無我章中具廣分別。問曰：現見有所為作，云何無我？論言「但是五陰和合因緣起作，實無有我。」問曰：無常苦與無我，為一為異？體若是一，不應說三；體若是異，佛不應說無常即苦，苦即無我。論言「事一，隨義分三。」五義分之：一隨觀分三，為無常行所觀察者，說為無常；苦行觀者，說之為苦；無我行觀，名為無我。二所為分三，修無常想，為不入三界；修習苦想，為知三界過；修無我想，為捨三界。三治見說三，修無常想，對治常見；修習苦想，對治樂見；修無我想，對治我見。四除障說三，修無常想，斷除愛心；修習苦想，斷除慢高；修無我想，斷除諸見。五本末分三，論說「五陰是其無常，無常是苦，苦是無我。」以此諸義，故分三種。厭食想者，觀所食物多從不淨因緣而生，如肉從於精血而生，乳酪之屬從於血生，餘食多為虫鼠垢污，種種污穢至其口中，胸涎流下與唾和合，入腹成糞，無可貪樂。又觀所食多功力得，為求是食受種種苦，故應厭離。復應觀察食貪罪過，生地獄中吞鐵飲銅，生餓鬼中受飢渴苦，生畜生中食諸糞穢，如是一切無量諸苦多由食生，故應生厭。一切世間不可樂者，觀諸世間皆無常苦，無可貪樂。此世間中有其二種：一眾生世間、二器世間。眾生世間有五種事不可貪樂：一具八苦故不可樂；二具無量煩惱結使故不可樂；三具諸惡業故不可樂；四難具好事故不可樂，或有行善而身苦惱、或身安樂而行不是，或好施而貧、或有富而慳，或柔濡而貪、或少欲而多瞋，如是一切難可具備；五難稱可故不可樂，或見卑下而謂諂曲、或見端直而謂慢高、或見親附而謂貪求、或見疎遠而謂憎嫌，如是一切眾生世間有是五事不可貪樂。器世間中亦有多種不可貪樂，或熱或寒、或水或旱、或厄或嶮、或增不善、或多恐怖，如是一切故不可樂。問曰：前說無常苦等即是叵樂，何須別說一切世間不可樂乎？論言「觀行有總有別，前無常苦是其總觀，此是別觀。」又復前說無常苦等為呵法過，此不可樂觀眾生過。又前有漏，此是無漏。又前見道，此是修道。故復說之。言死想者，觀察是身不久摩滅，當為無量狐狼野干之所食噉。不淨想者，觀察是身五種不淨：一種子不淨，是身過去業煩惱等以為種子，現以父母精血為種。二住處不淨，在母腹中生藏之下熟藏之上安置己身。三自體不淨，三十六物集成己體。四自相不淨，九孔常流。五終竟不淨，是身死已，埋則成土、燒則為灰、虫食成糞，竟無一淨。斷離滅想，釋有通別。所言通者，如《成實》說「斷一切行，名之為斷。離一切行，說之為離。滅一切行，目之為滅。此等同體，隨義分三。」龍樹亦言「緣涅槃法斷諸結使，名之為斷。離諸結使，說之為離。滅諸結使，名之為滅。同體義分，如苦、無常、無我法等同體義分。」所言別者，如《成實》中五義辨之：一懃斷已生未生之惡，名之為斷，斷惡業也；令其欲盡更不重生，說之為離，離煩惱也；以斷因故五陰不生，名之為滅。二斷無明漏，名之為斷；離欲漏有漏，說之為離；滅此二果，稱之為滅。三斷無明得慧解脫，名之為斷；除離貪愛得心解脫，名之為離；斷除離貪愛得心解脫名之為離得俱解脫滅盡癡愛，說以為滅。四以聖道斷諸煩惱，名之為斷；得有餘涅槃，說以為離；得無餘涅槃，稱之為滅。五得盡智，名之為斷；得無生智，說以為離；身智俱亡，說以為滅。依《大智論》三義辨異：一斷三毒，名之為斷；斷三塗因，離愛名離；離人天因，苦盡名滅，滅五趣果。二修四現忍遠離煩惱，名之為離；修無漏道斷諸煩惱，說之為斷；入涅槃時滅盡諸苦，說名為滅。三得有餘涅槃斷諸煩惱，名之為斷；得無餘涅槃滅盡諸苦，說之為滅；此二方便，說名為離（此一門竟）。

First, explaining names and distinguishing aspects. When the observing mind apprehends characteristics in dharmas, that is called "conception" (saṃjñā). The varieties of conception differ; in this one section, ten are expounded. What are the ten names? First, the conception of impermanence; second, the conception of suffering; third, the conception of non-self; fourth, the conception of disgust with food; fifth, the conception of the unpleasurableness of all worlds; sixth, the conception of death; seventh, the conception of impurity; eighth, the conception of abandonment; ninth, the conception of dispassion; tenth, the conception of cessation, also called the conception of exhaustion.

As for the conception of impermanence: observing that conditioned dharmas flux and drift without permanence is therefore called "impermanence." Impermanence is threefold: First, impermanence of delimited lifespans (pariccheda-anityatā), wherein retribution in the six destinies differs across the three periods of time; within this there are two types: (1) with remainder, where the body dies but the name persists; (2) without remainder, where the body dies and the name is extinguished. Second, moment-to-moment impermanence, in which conditioned dharmas shift and transform moment by moment through the four characteristics. Third, the impermanence of intrinsic nature lacking real existence, in which conditioned dharmas are vainly assembled through causes and conditions and have no determinate nature; arising is non-arising, and cessation is non-cessation. As Nāgārjuna says, seeing the body perish and cease completely is the first, the impermanence of delimited lifespans; arising and ceasing anew at every moment is moment-to-moment impermanence; having nowhere from which it comes when arising and nowhere to which it goes when ceasing is the impermanence of its intrinsic nature lacking real existence. Through these three contemplations, one can extinguish afflictions.

Question: Some people, because of seeing impermanence, have their afflictions increase further, dreading that their prime of life will not last long, and intensely arouse defiled attachment. Why is it now said that the conception of impermanence can extinguish afflictions?

Nāgārjuna explains: "One who sees thus is said to have partial vision, not complete vision. If one sees completely, one destroys afflictions. What is complete vision? As the Buddha formerly told Śāriputra: 'You should completely cultivate the conception of impermanence. Because of impermanence, there is emptiness; when emptiness is attained, impermanence also does not exist, because arising, abiding, cessation, and so forth are unobtainable. When one sees that arising, abiding, and cessation are unobtainable, that is named ultimate intrinsic impermanence.'" Since nature is already impermanent, what pleasure is there to covet?

Question: If it is said that when emptiness is attained, impermanence also does not exist, why did the Buddha state that the meaning of impermanence is the reality of the truth of suffering?

The treatise says: "Because people with wrong views deemed the world to be permanent, the Buddha spoke of impermanence as the reality of the truth of suffering; he did not speak of it because impermanence is ultimately real."

As for the conception of suffering: observing that conditioned dharmas are impermanent and therefore suffering. Suffering is threefold: namely, the suffering of suffering, the suffering of change, and the suffering of conditioned existence. This meaning has been distinguished in full detail previously in the chapter on the four noble truths.

Question: If it is said that dharmas are all suffering, how can there be the distinction of the three feelings of painful, pleasant, and neutral?

As the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says, ordinary persons falsely generate the conception of pleasure in the midst of suffering; in principle, it is truly suffering.

Question: If dharmas are suffering because of impermanence, then since the noble path is impermanent, is its nature suffering or not?

Nāgārjuna explains: "'Suffering because of impermanence' was stated with regard to the five tainted aggregates of clinging, not with regard to the noble path. Why is this? Because the path can destroy suffering and corresponds to the real meaning of emptiness and non-self, therefore although it is impermanent, it is not suffering."

Question: The five aggregates of the noble ones are impermanent; when the five aggregates break down, do the noble ones suffer or not?

Nāgārjuna explains: "If one has a mind of attachment, then when dharmas break down, there is suffering. Noble ones are without attachment; therefore, although they are impermanent, suffering does not arise."

Question: If it is said that noble ones have no suffering, then as spoken in the sūtras—Śāriputra suffered from wind illness, Pilindavatsa suffered from eye illness, and the monk Raivata suffered from hemorrhoid illness—why do you say there is none?

The treatise says: "Noble ones only lack mental suffering; they are not without bodily suffering."

Question: If noble ones lack mental suffering, why do they extinguish cognition and take up cessation?

Answer: "Lacking it" means only that they lack the suffering of regretful change and decay; it does not mean they lack the suffering of the suffering of suffering and disgust with conditioned existence.

As for the conception of non-self: because conditioned dharmas are impermanent and suffering, they do not possess autonomy, and therefore there is no self. Furthermore, because all dharmas lack a determinate nature, there is no self. Non-self is twofold: first, the non-self of sentient beings; second, the non-self of dharmas. This meaning has been distinguished in full detail previously in the chapter on non-self.

Question: We presently see that there is activity and deed; how can there be no self?

The treatise says: "It is only the combination of causes and conditions of the five aggregates that arises and acts; in reality there is no self."

Question: Are impermanence, suffering, and non-self identical or different? If their essence is one, three should not be spoken; if their essences are different, the Buddha should not have said that impermanence is suffering, and suffering is non-self.

The treatise says: "The actuality is one, but according to the meaning it is divided into three." It is divided by five meanings: First, divided into three according to contemplation: that which is observed by the practice of impermanence is spoken of as impermanent; that observed by the practice of suffering is spoken of as suffering; that observed by the practice of non-self is named non-self. Second, divided into three according to purpose: cultivating the conception of impermanence is in order not to enter the three realms; cultivating the conception of suffering is in order to know the faults of the three realms; cultivating the conception of non-self is in order to relinquish the three realms. Third, spoken as three to remedy views: cultivating the conception of impermanence remedies the view of permanence; cultivating the conception of suffering remedies the view of pleasure; cultivating the conception of non-self remedies the view of self. Fourth, spoken as three to eliminate hindrances: cultivating the conception of impermanence cuts off the mind of craving; cultivating the conception of suffering cuts off conceit and pride; cultivating the conception of non-self cuts off all views. Fifth, divided into three according to root and branch: the treatise says, "The five aggregates are impermanent, impermanence is suffering, and suffering is non-self." By these various meanings, they are divided into three kinds.

As for the conception of disgust with food: observing that the food eaten is mostly produced from impure causes and conditions—as meat is produced from semen and blood, varieties of milk and cheese are produced from blood, and other foods are mostly defiled by worms and rats; various foul things reach one's mouth, saliva flows down from the chest and combines with spit, and entering the belly it becomes feces—there is nothing to be coveted or enjoyed. Furthermore, observing that the food eaten is obtained through much labor, and in seeking this food one undergoes various sufferings, one should therefore feel disgust and detachment. Moreover, one should observe the offenses of greed for food: being born in the hells where one swallows iron balls and drinks molten copper, being born among hungry ghosts where one undergoes the suffering of hunger and thirst, being born among animals where one eats various excrement and filth—all such countless sufferings mostly arise from food; hence one should generate disgust.

As for the unpleasurableness of all worlds: observing that all worlds are impermanent and suffering, with nothing to covet or enjoy. Within these worlds there are two kinds: first, the world of sentient beings; second, the world of the physical vessel. In the world of sentient beings there are five things that cannot be coveted or enjoyed: First, because it possesses the eight sufferings, it is unpleasurable. Second, because it possesses countless afflictions and fetters, it is unpleasurable. Third, because it possesses all evil karmas, it is unpleasurable. Fourth, because good things are difficult to be complete, it is unpleasurable: sometimes one practices good yet the body suffers distress; sometimes the body is comfortable yet one's conduct is improper; sometimes one is fond of giving yet poor; sometimes one is wealthy yet stingy; sometimes one is gentle yet greedy; sometimes one has few desires yet much anger; in such ways it is difficult for all to be complete. Fifth, because it is difficult to satisfy people, it is unpleasurable: seeing humility, they consider it flattery; seeing uprightness, they consider it pride; seeing closeness, they consider it covetous seeking; seeing distance, they consider it dislike; in such ways, the world of sentient beings has these five things that cannot be coveted or enjoyed. In the physical world, there are also many kinds that cannot be coveted or enjoyed: sometimes hot or cold, sometimes flooding or drought, sometimes distress or danger, sometimes increasing non-virtue, or having much terror; in all such ways it is therefore unpleasurable.

Question: It was previously said that impermanence, suffering, and so on are precisely what is unpleasurable; why must the unpleasurableness of all worlds be spoken of separately?

The treatise says: "Contemplative practice has both general and particular aspects: the previous contemplation of impermanence and suffering is general contemplation, while this is particular contemplation." Moreover, the previous mention of impermanence, suffering, and so on was to rebuke the faults of dharmas; this unpleasurableness contemplates the faults of sentient beings. Again, the former was tainted, while this is untainted. Again, the former was the path of seeing, while this is the path of cultivation. Therefore it is spoken again.

As for the conception of death: observing that this body will before long be destroyed, and will be devoured by countless foxes, wolves, and jackals.

As for the conception of impurity: observing that this body has five kinds of impurity: First, impurity of seed: this body takes past karma, afflictions, and so on as its seed, and presently takes the parents' semen and blood as its seed. Second, impurity of dwelling place: inside the mother's womb, one's body is situated beneath the stomach for raw food and above the stomach for digested food. Third, impurity of self-nature: thirty-six substances combine to form one's body. Fourth, impurity of characteristics: the nine orifices constantly discharge. Fifth, ultimate impurity: after this body dies, if buried it becomes dirt, if burned it becomes ash, if eaten by worms it becomes feces; in the end there is not a single pure thing.

As for the conceptions of abandonment, dispassion, and cessation: their explanations have general and distinct aspects. As for the general: as the Tattvasiddhi says, "Severing all conditioned forces (saṃskāra) is called abandonment (prahāṇa). Becoming detached from all conditioned forces is spoken of as dispassion (virāga). Extinguishing all conditioned forces is designated as cessation (nirodha). These are of the same essence, divided into three according to meaning." Nāgārjuna also says: "Taking the dharma of nirvāṇa as object and severing all fetters is called abandonment. Becoming detached from all fetters is spoken of as dispassion. Extinguishing all fetters is called cessation. They are of the same essence and divided by meaning, just as the dharmas of suffering, impermanence, and non-self are of the same essence and divided by meaning."

As for the distinct: as distinguished in the Tattvasiddhi through five meanings: First, diligently severing evil already arisen and not yet arisen is named abandonment, which is severing evil karma; causing desire to be exhausted so that it does not arise again is spoken of as dispassion, which is detachment from afflictions; because causes are severed, the five aggregates do not arise, which is named cessation. Second, severing the outflow of ignorance is named abandonment; detachment from the outflow of desire and the outflow of existence is spoken of as dispassion; extinguishing the fruits of these two is called cessation. Third, severing ignorance to attain liberation through wisdom is named abandonment; eliminating craving to attain liberation of mind is named dispassion; attaining double liberation, having extinguished delusion and craving, is spoken of as cessation. Fourth, severing afflictions by means of the noble path is named abandonment; attaining nirvāṇa with remainder is spoken of as dispassion; attaining nirvāṇa without remainder is called cessation. Fifth, attaining the knowledge of exhaustion (kṣaya-jñāna) is named abandonment; attaining the knowledge of non-arising (anutpāda-jñāna) is spoken of as dispassion; when both body and cognition are extinguished, that is spoken of as cessation.

According to the Dàzhìdù lùn, the distinction is made through three meanings: First, severing the three poisons is named abandonment; severing the causes of the three wretched destinies by becoming detached from craving is dispassion; detaching from the causes of human and heavenly rebirth, where suffering is exhausted, is named cessation, extinguishing the fruits of the five destinies. Second, cultivating the four present forbearances to remain distant from afflictions is named dispassion; cultivating the untainted path to sever afflictions is spoken of as abandonment; when entering nirvāṇa, all sufferings are completely extinguished, which is called cessation. Third, attaining nirvāṇa with remainder and severing afflictions is named abandonment; attaining nirvāṇa without remainder and completely extinguishing all sufferings is spoken of as cessation; the skillful means for these two is spoken of as dispassion. (This concludes the first section.)